On 10/10/2011 03:42 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le lundi 10 octobre 2011 à 10:23 -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : >> >> If we try to reduce the work to the available developers by reducing >> the scope >> of the archive, then we are also reducing the pool of potentially >> interested >> developers as well. > > It does make sense to freeze and ship a consistent archive for the > system components (base system, plumbers, desktop shells, default > applications), it doesn't make sense to try to make small softwares > (ubuntu-tweaks, simple-lightdm-manager, etc) respect our freezes, cycle, > rely on acl to upload to the main archive, etc
We essentially have three classes of packages in Ubuntu: - Lightweight applications, which I would encourage to apply through developer.ubuntu.com (i.e. Extras/ARB), and we can help the developer figure out if it makes sense to release through extras, submit upstream to Debian (possibly combined with an Ubuntu backport, depending on where we are in the cycle), or submit to main/universe. - General purpose system components, large applications, and everything else that isn't specific to Ubuntu. These should submit upstream to Debian. - System components that are specific to Ubuntu. There aren't many of these, but they do exist. They only really make sense when tied to a particular release, and need the benefit of integration testing with that release, so should participate in the usual Ubuntu development cycle. It's not entirely clear what channel these should use. If it's not a large set of packages, perhaps the current practice of working through the human network of Ubuntu developers is enough. REVU isn't very actively used/developed at the moment. Allison -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel